Liberals tend to take umbrage when it is suggested that they are hostile to religion, or to religious people, or to some subset thereof. They have nothing against evangelical Christians, they respond, so long as they do not seek to use the state to impose their faith on others. Some liberals go further, saying that they are religious progressives who advocate a bigger welfare state as an outgrowth of their religious values. (A number of my fellow contributors to the new Brookings Institution book One Electorate Under God? take this approach, including Paul Begala.) I take all these liberals at their word. I do not think that most liberals who passionately dislike the Christian Right are hostile to Christians; they have some political and moral disagreements with conservative Christians. On most of the issues in question, I am inclined to agree with or at least lean toward the views of contemporary Christian conservatives, but there is plenty to debate.

But the phenomenon of liberal religion-bashing isn't imaginary, either. Robert Reich's latest column in The American Prospect is a case in point. It starts out pressing the case for the contemporary liberal understanding of church-state separation and its history in America, and uses this understanding to criticize the Bush administration. (The article is headlined "Bush's God.") He says that "the problem" with "religious zealots" is that "they confuse politics with private morality."

Now I disagree with much of what he has to say, and consider it uncivil to describe advocates of prayer in public schools, a ban on abortions, and other policies Reich dislikes as "religious zealots." (I don't consider myself a religious zealot, although I support several of those policies, and support some of them zealously.) But none of this is especially outrageous or even noteworthy.

But then comes Reich's conclusion:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face. This goes well beyond the common denunciation of "fundamentalism" where that term is meant to describe an ideology that seeks the imposition of religious views on non-believers. (That's what Andrew Sullivan means when he uses the term.) It is a denunciation  as a graver threat than terrorists  of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.

Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political "primacy of the individual," the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God  if, that is, we are to choose between individual human beings and God  then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. I certainly would. That would be the case for plenty of believers who are not sure what they think about abortion law, or want a higher minimum wage. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy.

I will not reciprocate the sentiment. Reich is not my enemy, although I certainly want most of what he stands for politically not to prevail. I don't think we have to have the battle he forecasts. I hope we don't. In fact, I pray we don't.

Well Robert Reuch is so far to the left he could not even come close to getting the democratic nomination for governor in Massachusetts. Reich demonstrates one thing about democrats that is very telling. Even if (for the sake of argument) we were to say that we conservatives are "clinton-haters" our so called "hatred" was for him and just him. But the liberals hatred of Bush is not just for Bush but it extends to the people that vote for and support Bush. They truly hate conservative christians (as well as other religious conservatives whose lives have been transformed for the positive through faith in God). They've lived their entire lives in a moral abyss and they can not stand it when a christian like Bush whose live has clearly been transformed not through a government program but through his faith in Christ.

*****The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma.******

Thats laughable. The secularist are all about conformity for the...what was the word Mrs Clinton used....oh yes...."the common good"....yep lots of individualism there! Whereas the christian faith that Reich's criticizing is about transforming individual lives more then they could ever do themselves.

Well Robert Reuch is so far to the left he could not even come close to getting the democratic nomination for governor in Massachusetts.

But his thinking is right in line with John & John. We use to think this was ratical, now it is mainstream Democratic thinking. The really sad thing is the rank and file Democrats don't seem to realize this.

Well if you look at Christianity from a political perspective it is predominantly socialist. It certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it. And let's not forget it was the Christians who started introducing socialism into this country in the late 1800's

12 Kerberos

______________________________________

Well said bump..

[Don't forget they introduced both socialism AND prohibitionism into this countries politics in the late 1800's.]

13
posted on 07/06/2004 6:17:19 PM PDT
by tpaine
(The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)

Reich is easy to understand. SWhen he wasa growing up, he prayed to God to make him tall. He isn't, therefore, God doesn't exist....and now li'l Robbie's getting even.

Yup. He's like Rutger Hauer's android character Roy in Blade Runner. Roy seeks and finds his creator, Tyrell, to ask for more life, but when Tyrell says "We made you the best we could", Roy doesn't like the answer, so he kills his creator.

14
posted on 07/06/2004 6:34:06 PM PDT
by Vision Thing
(Kerry-Edwards: For men and women who vote under the influence of their own estrogen)

Let me also add that the notion of the West's characterization as the primacy of the individual is simplistic at best, as well as at worst. Western Civilization has a long history colored by the tension of the individual's thought and actions in relations to a higher authority, along with a varied and colorful Christian ethic toward family and work. At least that's my 2 cents on that part.

Let's not forget it was the Christians who started introducing socialism into this country in the late 1800's

Yes, the worldwide socialist movement grew out of Christian impulse to "immanentize the eschaton." See Dostoevsky, though, for sociological evidence that it was those who rejected Christianity (yet still acted on the Christian impulse) who were the worst perpetrators of that.

Anyway, what is the point relative to this article? I am guessing you have an Ayn Randian take on atheism, and you accept Reich's primacy of the individual.

Reich makes the mistake even most Christians make, thinking of a dualism "between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma."

We have historical, eyewitness, independent sources internally and externally validating the truth claims of Christianity. It's easy, for anyone willing to study, to objectively find the errors in false claims, false religions.

But Christianity's claims have never been disproven. Jesus really rose, He really is God, therefore what He says is true. Being God, what He has to say about how to deal with people should be accurate, eh?! Precisely because Christianity is not just "faith", but "faith founded on facts", it provides a great way for dealing with people individually and governmentally.

Christianity teaches that BOTH now and the future are important. It is a false dichotomy Reich makes between those who value the here and now, vs those who hold the future life as more important. God is always to be served. And, we are always to love our neighbor. It's not either/or, but BOTH!

Absolutely sinister paragraph by Robert Reich, one of Clinton's old cronies, and a regular on different news talk shows.

But then comes Reich's conclusion:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face. This goes well beyond the common denunciation of "fundamentalism" where that term is meant to describe an ideology that seeks the imposition of religious views on non-believers. (That's what Andrew Sullivan means when he uses the term.) It is a denunciation  as a graver threat than terrorists  of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.

Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God.

Spread this wide. To TV, radio, print, churches, etc.

It is the MOST sinister comment EVER made for a former national level secretary.

Quotes are missing so I don't know which are Reich's words and which are interpretive. But one can see that Reich's attack is based on marginalizing and demonizing his opponents, a revered and often-used liberal tactic.

Andrew, I checked on the quotes problem. In the original National Review piece it is offset in a "blockquote" as I have done. The poster of this thread just did a "copy/paste" and did not include the "blockquote."

And let's not forget it was the Christians who started introducing socialism into this country in the late 1800's

It was theologians that pushed evolution, before it was accepted by the mainstream scientific community, ...so what does that prove?

It was also the pilgrims that tried the commune approach, which almost wiped them out. They then switched to private ownership, and became very successful. This lesson was not lost on our founding fathers, which were also Christians. Seems to me that you are painting with too broad a brush.

If we allow only those who don't believe in a God to rule and prevent those who do believe in God from ruling, then we get a toxic mixture. That mixture has already been seen in practice in several countries. One of those countries tried to exterminate his people. But since he approves of the toxic mixture, it seems reasonable to assume that he approves of the results as well. An amoral monster. Good thing there is only 3/4 of one of him.

I will not reciprocate the sentiment. Reich is not my enemy, although I certainly want most of what he stands for politically not to prevail. I don't think we have to have the battle he forecasts. I hope we don't. In fact, I pray we don't.

What the author senses is the lefts targeting of conservatives under the guise of 'separation of church and state'.

I have also seen the lefts frustration of losing the presidency in 2000. They have no respect for conservative politicians and are now slashing at anything valued by conservatives in general... traditional family, pro-life, religion, the private sector and even the military.

Should we be surprised? No... this is not surprising behavior for American socialists and the Democrat party is now full of them. Kerry and Edwards are already eying wealthier Americans to be the beasts of burden in the lefts 'Great Society II: The Destruction of Capitalism.'

Sounds like Reich and the magician Penn Jillette are on the same pathetic, anti-Christian wavelength (from an interview with Jillette):

People tend to use the word faith as if its a good thing and it often is. If youre talking about it in terms of loyalty and in terms of your friends, then its a beautiful thing. If youre talking about it in terms of optimism and of being happy about life and things will turn out okay, then, its also okay. If youre talking about it in terms of Allah taking care of me in the next life for being a martyr and, therefore, I will fly the planes into the Twin Towers, I dont know how you can justify that as a good thing.

There is no difference between Mel Gibsons faith and the terrorists faith. We have no evidence that there was a historic Jesus, we have no evidence that he died for our sins. We have no evidence, that we can agree on, for any of that. If you look at the distribution of religion, it tends to be geographical and not intellectual, which is a another discussion.

Ping on #44 - a glimpse of how Christians and Jews and the freedom of religion would be esteemed under consecutive Democratic Socialist rule with the likes of a John-John or John-Hillary or J-FK anything government:

_______________________________

"Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God."

46
posted on 07/07/2004 8:15:38 AM PDT
by Happy2BMe
(Ronald Reagan to Islamic Terrorism: YOU CAN RUN - BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!)

Ping on #44 - a glimpse of how Christians and Jews and the freedom of religion would be esteemed under consecutive Democratic Socialist rule with the likes of a John-John or John-Hillary or J-FK anything government:

_______________________________

"Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God."

47
posted on 07/07/2004 8:16:44 AM PDT
by Happy2BMe
(Ronald Reagan to Islamic Terrorism: YOU CAN RUN - BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.